Pages

Thursday, January 29, 2015

GMO potato seeks FDA approval, opponents say safety risks remain

A new genetically modified potato is closer than ever to arriving in
American grocery stores, but while advocates claim it can actually
reduce the risk of cancer, opponents say not nearly enough is known to
ensure public safety.

Created by the J. R. Simplot Company, ‘Innate’ potatoes
were created by inserting extra genes into them – genes that are
modified but that otherwise exist naturally in the potato.
Through genetic modification using RNA interference (RNAi),
scientists used these genes to shut down a few of the potato’s
other original genes – a process called gene silencing.

Some of the genes being
shut down are those that cause bruising and create acrylamide
when potatoes are baked or fried. Acrylamide is an amino acid
which, in tests conducted on rats, has increased the animals’
risk of getting cancer.

There are also financial incentives behind gene silencing, and
the Innate potato was designed to solve a big monetary problem.
Farmers currently throw out 1.4 billion pounds of potatoes due to
browning and bruising, costing them 15 percent of their profits
each year. The fewer potatoes thrown out because of this, the
more profit they can recoup off their yield.

While the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the new
varieties in November, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
yet to give the green light on the potato. It is looking into how
the genetic modification has altered the chemical makeup of the
potato, and whether that raises safety concerns.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is worried about the USDA
granting the Innate potato a non-regulatory status, since GMO
foods are not required to be labeled. As a result, the new potato
will be sold to consumers without their knowledge.

“We simply don’t know enough about RNA interference (RNAi)
technology to determine whether GE crops developed with it are
safe for people and the environment. If this is an attempt to
give crop biotechnology a more benign face, all it has really
done is expose the inadequacies of the US regulation of GE
crops,”said Doug Gurian-Sherman, the director of
sustainable agriculture and senior scientist at CFS. “These
approvals are riddled with holes and are extremely
worrisome.”

CFS said gene silencing may end up turning down – or off – genes
other than those that are targeted, because many genes contain
similar, or even identical, stretches of DNA. Current testing
cannot detect such effects.

However, Alan McHughen, a biotechnologist and geneticist at UC
Riverside, said he disagreed, adding that the Innate potato is a
use of genetic technology “that is benign as you’re ever
going to find.”

Meanwhile, RT correspondent Lindsay France reported that Simplot
has conducted 140 field trials in 15 potato-growing states, as
well as Canada.

“We’ve been eating genetically engineered food products since
the middle 90’s and so far there is not a single documented case
of harm,”McHughen added. “That’s a pretty good safety
track record, I would be really surprised is this potato would
reverse that trend.”

Still, there is other dissent coming from food manufacturers.
Frito-Lay, the biggest potato chip maker, and McDonald’s have
both issued statement saying they are not planning to use the
Simplot potatoes in their products.

According to France, “Simplot says the Innate will most
likely be marketed as a ‘value added product’ courtesy of the
suppression of the cancer-causing agent gene, and a lack of
browning. But it’s not up to Simplot, and it’s not up to the
federal government which has passed no law creating a right to
know policy for the consumer. It’s up to the manufacturers who
stand to profit from letting us know or not.”

Intellectual Center Reviews

Intellectual Center provides Independent News in blog format to assist other activists, teachers, and elders with alternative news, information on social issues, and research material.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Intellectual Center (Website) may post copyrighted material not specifically authorized in accordance with Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law allowing purposes associating learning processes. Please be advised if you intend to use such copyrighted material for personal reasons beyond "fair use," considerations, please obtain permission from the copyright owner. Learning processes encompass a vast array of issues of concern and would not be restrictive, it would offer critique and extended scholarly research.

Website may display third party authors/advertising which may not represent the views or opinions of Website or contributors. Advertisements are not endorsed as such and are intended as alternative ways to support the work at Website.